Appeal No. 2003-0626
Application No. 09/410,896
specification is not properly read into the claims.
Although the examiner is correct that limitations from the
specification should not be read into the claims, we are in
agreement with the appellants that in the present case, the
specification clearly defines the term “first plurality” as
requiring at least three grooves. See, e.g., specification, page
7, lines 11-12 and page 11, lines 1-2 and 7-8. See In re Thrift,
298 F.3d 1357, 1364, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2006 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(the
terms in a patent claim are given their ordinary meaning as used
in the field of the invention unless the text of the patent
indicates they have a special meaning).
Claims 1 and 8 each include the limitation of “a first
plurality”, of circular grooves with the second plurality of
linear grooves being in fluid communication with each and
everyone of the first plurality of grooves. The remaining
independent claim, claim 16, specifically requires at least three
circular grooves, each of which is in fluid communication with
linear grooves. We are in agreement with appellants that the
examiner has failed to establish why it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to have modified Moslehi such that each of the linear grooves is
in communication with at least three, i.e., a plurality, of the
concentric grooves.
Accordingly, the rejection is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007